Quantcast
Thursday, July 21st, 2011 at 2:00 pm  |  21 responses

Derek Fisher Hopes to Avoid NFL-Like Contracts for NBA Players


Derek Fisher, as president of the players union, doesn’t like the way the NFL treats its players contract-wise, and will do everything he can to avoid a similar fate for NBA players. From SI: “Derek Fisher believes revenue sharing can resolve many of the owners’ problems, but he’s skeptical about how they would institute a hard cap as well. If the NFL is able to move toward a labor settlement, it could create more pressure on the NBA to construct a deal. But players’ union president Derek Fisher has a different view of the NFL. He wants no part of football’s structure. ‘It breaks my heart to see the way guys like LaDainian Tomlinson get dealt with in the NFL,’ Fisher said of the former MVP who gained 914 yards for the Jets last season after he had been waived by the Chargers. ‘To see what he’d done for the San Diego Chargers and to get to that place where he was under a contract that’s already been signed. The Chargers were able to absorb value in income and potential profits from years of his services, and then at the drop of a hat, based on arbitrary thinking because he’s a certain age and he can’t produce at a certain level anymore, he’s gone. Out the door.’ While NBA owners may be seeking to create their own version of the NFL system — based on revenue sharing, a hard cap and the right to cut off salary to underachieving players — Fisher is skeptical. He believes revenue sharing can resolve many of the owners’ problems, but he is extremely skeptical about how they would institute a hard cap as well as contracts that are partially or entirely nonguaranteed.”


  • Add a Comment
  • Share
  • RSS

Tags: , , , , ,

  • http://www.twitter.com/dfrance21 dfrance21

    I see where Fish is coming from, but it goes both ways. Teams shell out big bucks for guys who come in and underachieve big time, then their stuck with an expensive lengthy contract and a losing squad. That’s hardly fair. I really think they should limit the number of years a player can sign. Make the max deal 3 years and I think it can benefit both sides. If a player is underachieving you’re not held hostage for too long. If the team is underachieving you don’t have to whine and force a trade because you’ll be a FA in a couple of years.

  • http://www.yomamajokes.com LilKDub503

    Max deal 3 years? Meh, I would think 4 would be better for bonafide stars. But I like where you’re going, there is no way there should be 5 year contracts to role players (gosh, remember when you could offer 6 and 7 year contracts?).

  • Byebye

    Nobody forced the pistons to give Ben Gordon 60 mil
    Nobody forced the mavs to give haywood 60 mil
    Nobody forced the magic to give Lewis 127 mil
    Nobody forced the wiz to give arenas 127 mil while he was hurt
    Nobody forced the pistons to give Charlie v 35 mil nobody forced Miami to give miller 35 mil
    Nobody forced the nets to give Kenyon 90 mil when he hurt his knee
    Nobody forced the bulls to give Ben Wallace 68 mil the owners are driving up the market by over paying marginal players to contracts they can’t meet consistanly

  • IAMORANGE4EVER

    My memo to the owners and players: MAKE IT HAPPEN!

  • http://www.optimabbc.be Max

    ^
    Walsh!

  • cramzy

    I don’t think its a case of players underachieving. I feel like owners overcompensate to begin with. Look at the list BYEBYE just compiled (and he didnt even include Eddy Curry, Dampier etc.) These dudes never did ANYTHING to garner those type of deals. Rashard made 1 all-star prior to 127 mil, and one after it. Did he really underachieve or was he just not worth it to begin with? Owners have to be smarter about how they set the market for superstars, good players, and role players. I’m all for shortening contracts but there has to be more discretion. No matter the cba they come up, owners will find a way to pay Amir Johnson 3x market value.

  • http://slamonline dan

    tell you what – me and my wife just need a mere 20k to star a new home – any chance????

    dont sound like much compared to this….

  • LA Huey

    I understand the players POV as well as the owners POV. However, I’m coming from the fans POV. These Rashard/Arenas/Varejao-type contracts hurts fans the most. I think 4 year contracts should be the max in most cases.

  • El_Black_Mamba

    Bye bye nailed it… and all of those are small market teams…obviously those owners are clueless about basketball and talent potential

  • Groves

    i think the age thing hits fisher close to home also

  • http://sdjklf.com Jukai

    This is kinda a bad stance for the union to take. There has to be SOME giving. The union can’t get everything they want. If you don’t want a hard cap, you gotta take the non-guarentees. You want those guarentees, give into the hard cap. Don’t just openly question everything but say “oh yeah, revenue sharing, that’ll just solve everything!”

  • http://slamonline.com Ugh

    “These Rashard/Arenas/Varejao-type contracts hurts fans the most.”
    How, exactly?
    Jukai – don’t ever be my union rep, please.

  • stayweird38

    What the fuss is fisher old scrub goblin talking about? There’s a lockout?! ;)

  • justine bacnis

    I think 4 year contracts should be the max in most cases.
    LA HUEY has the best idea.

  • seriousblack

    I agree with the four year max contract. I’m also certain that the player will indeed cave when it comes years guaranteed on a max contract, if they haven’t already. The problem I have with the owners is that they clearly need to be saved from themselves, but they want the players to do it. That’s not fair. Making poor business decisions isn’t the fault of the players. What began in the late 90′s is the owners somehow got it in their heads that it was okay to pay for potential instead of performance because of the KGs, Kobes,and T-macs. Giving out a max contract to a player you THINK and hope will turn into a superstar is your ownn damn fault. You can’t fault Ben Gordan and Rashard Lewis for holding their hands out to accept the money. How can teams like the Grizzlies complain that the players are getting paid too much when they spent all that money on Mike-friggin-Conley during the season? They don’t need to take the big money away as an option for every player. They need to spend the money more wisely.

  • http://slamonline.com AlbertBarr

    ^Mike Conley is arguably worth his contract. He played really well this last season.

  • ab40

    derek fisher should shut up be a man acknowledge he sucks and most MLE players do take a pay cut and get this lockout over with

  • seriousblack

    Mike Conley can be the poster boy for overpaid. It’s only going to look worse when younger point guards get better.

  • LA Huey

    @Ugh, in the case of Orlando fans, they’re on the brink of losing another peerless big man because management handed out a contract that’s now severely hampered their roster flexibility.

    I think the contracts should stay fully or mostly guaranteed. Otherwise, it’d be a one-sided contract. Your employer can’t sign you to a contract binding you to work for them for x years but reserve the right to terminate if they want.

  • http://ggfhh.com Jukai

    Ugh: you know the cbs is for the owners AND the players, right? I’ve been siding with the players this whole time but their inability to bargain is losing me. They can’t have everything the way it is. Period. That’s what the cabal is. They knew this. If you won’t give anything, you’ll get nothing.

  • John Starks

    Jukai is right

Advertisement